Commercial Speech Flashcards
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
Commercial Speech on public streets is not protected. Upheld a ban on distribution of advertisements in the streets.
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia City Consumer Council (1976)
Commercial Speech that proposes commercial transactions is protected, but is a lower-value category of speech. Invalidated law prohibiting pharmacists from advertising drug prices. Recipients of the information have a first amendment interest in price information.
Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Town of Willingboro (1977)
Ordinance prohibited “for sale” signs to stem white flight and failed level of scrutiny for commercial speech. Restricted free flow of truthful, non-misleading information.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commn. of New York (1980)
Intermediate Scrutiny Test for Commercial Speech: 1) Concerns lawful activity, is truthful and not misleading, 2) Government interest is substantial, 3) Regulation directly advances interest, 4) Regulation is not more extensive than necessary. Ban on electricity advertising during shortage that extended past the shortage. Ban was overbroad (all promotional advertising) and interest could be served with a less extensive regulation.
City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
City banned commercial newsracks but allowed general newsracks for aesthetic reasons. City could not selectively ban commercial speech because all newsracks are ugly.
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
State ban on advertisement of alcohol prices for temperance. Commercial Speech is less protected for the state’s interest in protecting from commercial harms, not societal harms. Temperance goal could’ve been acheived without regulating speech (taxes). Stevens Plurality: Would apply strict scrutiny to content based bans on truthful speech unrelated to protecting consumers from commercial harms.
Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp. (1999)
Matter of Public Concern? Restricted access to arrest records to scholarly or research related purposes. Does not burden free speech - just regulates access to government information. Does not restrict commercial speech because does not prohibit publishing of what is available, so not facially invalid.
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
Content & Viewpoint Discrimination, State law prohibited sale of doctor’s prescribing practices for the purpose of “detailing,” but allowed information to be sold for academic research. Law was content and viewpoint discrimination and was invalid because it did not directly advance a substantial state interest. Breyer Dissent: Would apply rational basis review. Content-Based Restrictions on Commercial Speech receive heightened scrutiny.
